agreed on the positive economic effects, at the risk of getting political, it seems to me like there is this 'meta-paternalism', selectively applied depending on the political stance of the speaker: When the person is against government subsidies or government welfare, the argument is the recipient will be dependent on the state. When the person is against private charity or private welfare, the argument is that the recipient will not be able to be economically self-sufficient. Both arguments which are very similar and both somewhat disingenuous.